Well I am glad you appreciate what it is like be subjected to a little bit of sarcasm.Let me also remind you of your rather sarcastic post to me to join another thread.

Also to threaten to block any further posts from others on another thread because you happen to disagree with them and even insult their religious belief, I found to be in very bad taste.

I have always tried to be polite to you in all my posts and have even apologised when I have poked a little bit of fun, even though I was responding in kind to your own sarcastic questioning.

I have always made it clear that I do not discus religion because of all the obvious emotions that manifest themselves, because when emotions take over truth is invariability a casualty.

Now you clearly believe that evolution, (something that you still have not been prepared to explain in any detail) is the answer to the Origin of Life.

I don’t have a problem with that, except that you insist that your belief is actual science.If you insist that your belief is founded in verifiable science then you must show that to be the case. Simply stating that it is a fact, is not science.

Now let me try once again and answer your question

So, explain it to me. There is no evolution. Where did the humans come from?

I explained very clearly my understanding of design and the reasons for it.I also asked that if you disagreed then to please explain where I was wrong.

You chose not to respond to any further posts until I posted on Quorum sensing, when you responded on Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:09 amabout14351-180.htmlI replied in great detail the following day at which point you again went silent until the 30th August when you jumped in again as the discussion had move on.

All of this reveals to me that you don’t wish to debate your own views except to state that they are science, but keep looking for opportunities to find fault with someone else post.

If that is your tactic then fair enough I have to live with it.However it only reveals to me that you do not have the confidence in your own view to debate it scientifically.

scottie wrote:Well I am glad you appreciate what it is like be subjected to a little bit of sarcasm.Let me also remind you of your rather sarcastic post to me to join another thread.

I have never insulted anyone for his or her English.

scottie wrote:Also to threaten to block any further posts from others on another thread because you happen to disagree with them and even insult their religious belief, I found to be in very bad taste.

I have locked the topic because Tomn was saing all the time God made everything so how you want to discuss with someone like that? I would refer you to the biohazard's post

scottie wrote:I have always tried to be polite to you in all my posts

I know. You were always the good,polite guy with posts full of sarcasm.

scottie wrote:Now you clearly believe that evolution, (something that you still have not been prepared to explain in any detail) is the answer to the Origin of Life.

No, I have already told you several times that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. As you stated correctly, Darwin wrote "On the origin of species" not "On the origin of life". What he was referring to, was diversification of species. It doesn't matter that much how exactly evolution proceeds, but it still does.

scottie wrote:

So, explain it to me. There is no evolution. Where did the humans come from?

Since you mentioned your post about14351-180.html#p133485 I'll try to reply.The DNA codes for many kinds or siRNA besides proteins. There is still increasing number of regulatory RNAs and together with the proteins they determine the regulation and organisation you're referring to.

scottie wrote:All our experience tells us that this king of information comes from a mind, one that is using “ an external source of free energy” as NASA puts it.

You know, my English is as bad as my biology, would you be so kind to explain what you mean by mind? Can you show exactly where NASA speaks about some mind?

scottie wrote:Please reflect for a moment, on your own (canalon's) statement

Science's best bet is currently self replicating RNAs with catalytic activity, as those things can be observed

Now apart from the fact that you aren’t keeping up with the latest understanding amongst scientists, you are reducing your view of science to a casino operation.

Scientists with certain philosophical needs may engage in betting, science however is not a casino.

This type of wishful speculation stems from a philosophical need.It has nothing to do with science and deep down I suspect you know it.( Freeman Dyson sums it up nicely in a conclusion comment to his own speculative scenario on origins. “ The question is whether any of that makes sense. I think it does, but like all models, its going to be short-lived and soon replaced by something better.”)

You know, that's the difference between you and a real scientist. Scientist will never say he knows anything for 100%, we have hypothesis and theories for which we have proofs. On the other hand, you know exactly what the truth is, although you have no proof.

Ashley Montague wrote:Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

No but you insult their belief. As a moderator on this forum you should be setting an example in being courteous.

I have locked the topic because Tomn was saing all the time God made everything so how you want to discuss with someone like that? I would refer you to the biohazard's post

I agree with biohazard that this is a scientific forum. I have said the same thing myself. What I haven’t done is insult Tomm through his religion. If you don’t like his post then don’t respond. Why should you stop others from responding, that smacks of censorship.

No, I have already told you several times that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. As you stated correctly, Darwin wrote "On the origin of species" not "On the origin of life". What he was referring to, was diversification of species. It doesn't matter that much how exactly evolution proceeds, but it still does.

This thread is entitled “Theories – Origin of Life I would have thought that is clear enough.This was the first question.

I'm writing a paper on the origin of life,……..

If you don’t want to discuss origin of life why are you posting on this thread?

Also I have argued that the origin of life and origin of species is one and the same thing.and I have explained why.

You have not (repeatedly) answered my question. I asked where did humans come from. Where they designed as humans or did they evolve from "lower" organisms?

I beg to differ, I have consistently argued that design is how humans and indeed species have come about.

This is what I said to both you and Patrick JackBean » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:51 pmabout14351-192.html

It did not appear without guidance.All our experience tells us that this kind of guiding information comes from a mind.Is there any other logic we have experience to go on?If so please inform.

I don’t see how much clearer I could have been.As you can see I asked for a response – You didn’t oblige

The information that controls the cell operations in a human cell differs from the information content of cells from other species.Differentiation is simply one clear example of that. There are of course more examples.The Functional and indeed specified information found in cells is not the product of natural forces.The only known source of this type of information is from a mind.If you disagree then please inform me how else it can come about.?

The DNA codes for many kinds or siRNA besides proteins. There is still increasing number of regulatory RNAs and together with the proteins they determine the regulation and organisation you're referring to.

I don’t argue with that. The point I was making is that there are different levels of information regulating cells. Where those levels of information that reside in the cell are, is not known to science. Hence my argument, that changes in DNA only effect the type of protein manufactured, and usually to the detriment of the cell.That is why there is such an elaborate system of feedback and error correction in cell processes.

This very system of error control is evidence in itself of design.

I didn’t report NASA spoke about the mind. I said NASA acknowledged that “an external source of free energy” was required.

I said that that external source can only come at the express will of a mind. In other words an outside agency is required to produce the design we see in the cell.

I hope that is clear enough.

Scientist will never say he knows anything for 100%, we have hypothesis and theories for which we have proofs.

I agree that a scientist should not say he knows 100%. When you say we have “ hypothesis and theories for which you have proof” That sounds like 100% to me.Also hypothesises are by definition not proven. When a body of information begins to support a hypothesis then, and only then may that hypothesis be elevated to the status of a theory.Every real scientist knows that.

The RNA world idea is a hypothesis. It has not been elevated to the status of a theory because the evidence does not support it. This is what NASA was reporting on.

Jackbean has argued that origin of species is not the same as the origin of life.These are two separate matters, and evolutionists only argue on the subject of origin of species.Now I have argued differently, stating that they are the same.

However let’s assume Jackbean’s view is correct and see where that leads us.

Now the data from the various DNA sequencing projects in animals and plants have revealed some quite surprising results.

For example the genes found in a mouse are for the most part the same genes found in man. There may be slight differences but are clearly the same genes. The same with man and fish that are, for the most part also, the same genes. Even further than that, the Genes in man and chimpanzee are almost identical.Not only are the genes the same, but the base pairs in these genes are often identical.http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/H ... pgen.shtml

We know that new proteins rarely evolve by point mutations in existing genes to create new genes. However there is this process called Exon Shuffling.

After a mRNA sequence is transcribed from the chromosome, a protein called a Spliceosome will cut out sections of the gene sequence, these sections are known as Introns.

What these Introns do is to break up the instructions for making the proteins. Therefore the Spliceosome has to cut out these sections of DNA and join the remaining pieces (Exons) together.This brings different protein domains together in the final protein when it is translated. Through this process, one gene may encode many different proteins.

So to summariseExons are the coding area in a genome that produce the genes that make proteins.Introns are stretches of DNA, within those coding areas, that have to be spliced out before the mRNA can be prepared for transport to the Ribosome for manufacturing protein.

These Spliceosome Introns have been quite puzzling to biologists, because although they are numerous in Eukaryotes ( plant animal and human cells) we don’t observe them in Prokaryotes.

Additionally some Eukaryotes like Yeast have a few of these while Humans have tens of thousands of them. The more complicated the organism the more Introns.

So the puzzling question for biologists is to determine where these came from.

When new information is required this is achieved by re-using existing information. This depends on the initial information and how this information must be shuffled in order to create new information.

Not only do they lack the information to shuffle but they don’t have the machinery to shuffle it.

Therefore the first gene could not have been created by re-arranging and shuffling existing information because there was no information or mechanism to shuffle and rearrange.

Hence the additional puzzling questions that Biologists are trying to grapple with.How did the information and the machinery come about for gene creation in Eukaryotes?

Remember that evolutionary theory posits that prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes by a process of random mutations of the genome and then filtered by the other process of Natural Selection. All of this cementing the other pillar of evolutionary theory – Common Ancestry.

This paper examines two competing theories. ( I use the word theory loosely)

One theory relies on an organism called a Progenote.Now what is a progenote?Well the progenote is a hypothetical candidate for the last universal cellular ancestor. There are two major conjectures associated with this entity: (1) the progenote's genome is based on RNA rather than DNA and (2) the replication, transcription and translation of this RNA organism had a much higher error rate than the ensuing DNA-based cells.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstractSo here is one explanation that requires a mythical organism and then goes beyond that by having two major conjectures associated with it.And of course ones like me get berated for not calling this science.

So what about the other “theory”Well I had better leave that to another post as this one is long enough.Don’t want to add to my “long-winded reputation”

Too bad, I was hoping this will fall away into the past, but you are obviously too bored, aren't you?

You're permanently insulting your oponents for lack of biology knowledge and bad English. I was sarcastic to you because of your lack of simple logic, little bit of imagination, comprehention of your oponent's arguments and overall lack of ability to discuss.Yeah, I have locked the topic. If you have problem with that, forward it upwards (the nick of moderator is honee_v).

You are "discussing" theories of origin of life by arguing about Darwinism/evolution. So you should first think about it, whether is it connected or not.

This is what I said to both you and PatrickJackBean » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:51 pmabout14351-192.html

I don't see any such post.

scottie wrote:It did not appear without guidance.All our experience tells us that this kind of guiding information comes from a mind.Is there any other logic we have experience to go on?If so please inform.

So, you again didn't explain, what you mean by "mind". You know, you have to forgive to us poor, who not speak Engrisch.You have not again said, how did the humans appear on Earth. Try to read this carefully and pick one possibility (or come up with other, but do not start about lysosomes )1) they were created when all the other life on Earth was created few billions of years ago2) they were created few tens/hundreds thousands of years ago when the creator was bored again and had no forum to post on3) they evolved from lower animals, no matter, whether these were created or arose spontanneously

scottie wrote:

The DNA codes for many kinds or siRNA besides proteins. There is still increasing number of regulatory RNAs and together with the proteins they determine the regulation and organisation you're referring to.

I don’t argue with that. The point I was making is that there are different levels of information regulating cells. Where those levels of information that reside in the cell are, is not known to science. Hence my argument, that changes in DNA only effect the type of protein manufactured, and usually to the detriment of the cell.That is why there is such an elaborate system of feedback and error correction in cell processes.

This is really like speaking with a retarded man. So you agree that DNA codes for regulating RNA and in the next sentence you write that changes in DNA affect only proteins.

scot wrote:I agree that a scientist should not say he knows 100%.When you say we have “ hypothesis and theories for which you have proof”That sounds like 100% to me.Also hypothesises are by definition not proven. When a body of information begins to support a hypothesis then, and only then may that hypothesis be elevated to the status of a theory.Every real scientist knows that.

I will try it differently: hypothesis and theories for which we currently have proofs. Think about Newton, who saw the apple to fall down and came up with gravity. Einstein had more proofs and came with his theories. Now we may even find his theories false, since there were detected neutrinos faster than light.On the other hand, you (and Tomn) are definitely sure that you are right and noone can prove you wrong, because it would reaquire either imagination or logic.

scot wrote:We know that new proteins rarely evolve by point mutations in existing genes to create new genes. However there is this process called Exon Shuffling.

Not true, there are gene duplications, which may further mutate.

scot wrote:This brings different protein domains together in the final protein when it is translated. Through this process, one gene may encode many different proteins.

You're obviously not much experienced with molecular biology, are you? Exons rarely code for separate domains. Also, these "many different proteins" are basically one protein with altered function.

Not only do they lack the information to shuffle but they don’t have the machinery to shuffle it.

The last sentence is like saying "I'm human because I'm human". But back to prokaryotes. Yes, they lack the spliceosome system and they lack introns. They lack in general gene editing, although there are some exceptions such as Trypanosoma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_editin ... r_deletion

scot wrote:Don’t want to add to my “long-winded reputation”

sounds interestingly on the end of 745 words long post

Just one more thing, once you said, that Darwinism is not scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable. How is your theory (sorry, truth) falsifiable?

1) When I discussed “Exon Shuffling” in isolation, it was not intended to show that it was the only method of new information. I am fully aware of gene duplication as another method. In fact I believe I was the first to introduce it into this thread back in August.Here

The point I was making was that, there had to be existing splicesome introns to shuffle in Eukaryotes, plus of course the mechanism to shuffle those introns.. As this is a vital process in transcription The question of how and where these introns and the shuffling mechanism came from is what the hypotheses I referred to were addressing.

Now clearly the so called early theory is not preferred by the article this forum has cited.In fact the article prefers the late theory. It has it’s own set of difficulties but that is another story.

2) Design theory is falsifiable. In a previous post I pointed to one way in which it would be falsifiable.